Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 23: The Objections of Kemnitz Are Refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist (from Reason). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
It remains that we answer to those things which the adversaries object against transubstantiation. And first I shall resolve the arguments of Kemnitz: for he has collected all that Luther, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, and Calvin, in Book IV of the Institutes, chapter 17, §§ 13, 14, and 15, wrote against transubstantiation. Then I shall resolve the arguments of Peter Martyr, because he added many new ones to the former.
Kemnitz, then, following Luther and Calvin, in the first place proposes an argument from the name of transubstantiation, that this Council invented that foreign and barbarous name of transubstantiation, which is a sign of a new, foreign, and barbarous opinion.
I answer first that it is foolish, when the thing is established, to wrangle about the name: and about the thing it is so established that it cannot be more established. For the Fathers, as we saw above, said that the bread is substantially converted into the flesh of Christ, the accidents of the bread nevertheless remaining; and Hugh said that substance passes into substance; and Guitmund, Alger, Peter of Cluny, before this Council disputed expressly that the substance of the bread is changed, the accidents not being changed — which action cannot be signified in one word unless we say “to be transubstantiated.”
Secondly, it was lawful for the Nicene Council to place in the Creed itself the name homoousion, and for the Council of Ephesus the name Theotokos; with greater reason, therefore, was it lawful for the Lateran Council to place in the confession of faith the name of transubstantiation. For in the Nicene Council there were 318 bishops, in the Ephesine 200, but in the Lateran the bishops were more than 400, and the Fathers in all more than 1000. Then before the Nicene and Ephesine Council few testimonies of the ancients stood concerning the thing itself; but before the Lateran, innumerable. Nor does it stand in the way that the name homoousion was not first invented in the Nicene Council, as we showed in Book 2 on Christ, chapter 1; for it is enough that in that Council it was publicly received and established by the Church, as Augustine affirms, Book 3 against Maximinus, chapter 14. Moreover, before the Nicene Council there did not stand any one name equivalent to the name homoousion; but before the Lateran Council there stood many names equivalent to the name of transelementation. For the Fathers everywhere call it conversion and transmutation, and Theophylact on chapter 14 of Mark calls it transelementation, which word certainly signifies nothing less than transubstantiation: for transelementation signifies a change of the whole thing down to the first elements, that is, down to the very matter, which by Aristotle is called an element. Finally, if the change of the form alone is called by the Greeks metamorphosis, and by the Latins transformation, and the change of the external figure is called transfiguration even in the Gospel, why cannot the change of substance rightly be called transubstantiation?
Then he proposes a negative argument in this way: “Most true is that axiom, that nothing is to be proposed by the Church as an article of faith which cannot be openly shown and proved from manifest, certain, and firm testimonies of Scripture. But transubstantiation is placed by Andradius (namely one of the Catholic Doctors) among those things which are defined and explained openly by no testimonies of holy Scripture. Scotus likewise, and the Cameracensian, and others expressly confess that neither by the words of Scripture, nor by the symbols of faith, nor by the opinions of the ancients, are we compelled to the dogma of transubstantiation.”
I answer to the several parts of the argument. The axiom of Kemnitz is most false: for if nothing is to be proposed as an article of faith which cannot be proved from manifest Scriptures, certainly it cannot be proposed as an article of faith that the books of the Evangelists and the epistles of Paul are divine Scripture: for this can be proved from no Scripture, but from tradition alone. And this being removed from the articles of faith, that those books are divine Scripture, at the same time all the other articles will fall which are proved from those Scriptures. The axiom of Kemnitz, therefore, destroys the whole faith.
And what Kemnitz reports from Andradius, and Scotus, and the Cameracensian, he reports in bad faith, as is customary with him. For Andradius, in his book on the Lord's Supper, does not say absolutely that transubstantiation is numbered among the things which cannot be proved from the Scriptures, but speaks hypothetically, and says: “Even if transubstantiation could not be proved from manifest Scriptures, as thou,” he says, “dost think, yet it would be madness, in those things which from certain passages of the Scriptures can neither be proved nor refuted, to be willing to believe one's own judgment rather than the whole Church.” And so Kemnitz, from the hypothetical opinion of Andradius, made an absolute one, that he might have occasion of calumniating: by which reasoning he could also say that Christ is a liar, and prove it from Christ's own testimony, who said, John 8, If I should say that I know Him not, I shall be like to you, a liar.
Where too, in passing, another imposture of Kemnitz against the same Andradius is to be noted. Thus Kemnitz speaks in the cited place: “My Andradius wove this argument: Scripture affirms that no word is impossible with God; therefore transubstantiation is to be believed, even though it surpass the powers and the mode of nature”; and then he easily eludes the inept argument. But it never came into the mind of Andradius to make such an argument: for he does not prove from omnipotence that transubstantiation is made, but that it is not impossible. Let the passage of Andradius be read, and the lie will fall of itself.
By a not dissimilar art Kemnitz plays with Scotus and the Cameracensian: for Scotus, in Book 4, distinction 11, question 3, whom the Cameracensian follows, says three things. First, that God could have effected that in the Sacrament the body of Christ should be truly present with the bread; and if He had done this, the mystery would have been easier and containing fewer miracles in itself. Which indeed some deny, others grant: but the matter does not pertain to faith, nor is there any controversy about it between us and the heretics.
Secondly, he says that there stands no passage of Scripture so express that without the declaration of the Church it evidently compels one to admit transubstantiation. And this is not altogether improbable. For although the Scripture which we adduced above seems to us so clear that it can compel a man who is not obstinate, yet whether it be so may deservedly be doubted, since men most learned and most acute, such as Scotus in the first place was, hold the contrary.
Thirdly he adds that, because the Catholic Church in a general Council declared the Scripture, from the Scripture so declared transubstantiation is manifestly proved. For that cannot fail to be the true sense of Scripture which he delivers who composed the Scripture: and the same Holy Spirit it is who both dictated the Scripture to the Apostles and Prophets, and declared it through the Church. Would that Kemnitz and the other Lutherans imitated this mode of speaking of Scotus; for no controversy would remain.
One thing, however, Scotus adds, which is by no means to be approved: that before the Lateran Council transubstantiation was not a dogma of faith: for he said this because he had not read the Roman Council under Gregory VII, nor that consent of the Fathers which we adduced above.
To the argument of Kemnitz, then, I answer that the dogma of transubstantiation pertains to the Catholic faith, because it is gathered from divine Scripture, according to the common explanation of the Fathers, and according to the declaration of the Church in general Councils.
The third argument Kemnitz takes from those Scriptures which call the Eucharist bread: since before the blessing it is called bread, Matthew 26 (He took bread, and of that which He took, He said): This is my body. And lest there could be doubt whether the demonstrative particle denoted that which the Lord had taken, Luke and Paul expressed it in the other species, since they say: He took the cup, blessed it, gave it to them, and said, This cup, etc. Therefore the simple history compels us to say that the bread is the body of the Lord, and the cup of wine is the cup of blood. But how can the bread be a body if there be no bread there? and the wine be blood, if there be no wine there? Then after the blessing, in the very use, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, calls the Eucharist bread five times: The bread which we break. We partake of one bread. As often as you shall eat this bread. He that shall eat this bread unworthily. Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread. Therefore true bread is in the Eucharist, and not a specter of bread, that is, accidents without substance. “These arguments,” says Kemnitz, “are clear, firm, and very pressing.”
I answer: That the pronoun This does not point to material bread we demonstrated openly enough in Book 1, chapters 10 and 11; nor is there need to repeat those things, because that the pronoun This points to material bread is useful to the Calvinists, against whom we then disputed, but to the Lutherans it not only profits nothing, but vehemently harms. Wherefore I greatly wonder at the imprudence of Luther, Kemnitz, and others, who so strongly press that bread is pointed to by that pronoun: for the more strongly they prove it, the more strongly they bind and hinder themselves. For (as I deduced above) if the Lord says, This bread is my body, it necessarily follows that either the saying of the Lord is false, if namely material bread is properly said to be the body of the Lord, which openly implies a contradiction; or the bread is a body not properly but figuratively, which the Calvinists will; or finally the bread, not remaining bread, but changed by the blessing into the body of the Lord, which is the opinion of the Catholic Church, and most true.
To those quibbles, then: “If the bread is the body of the Lord, then the bread remains”: I answer that it is false that the bread is the body of the Lord, unless you add, or at least understand, “changed.” For the changed bread truly is the body of the Lord: but then it does not follow that the bread must remain; for the changed bread is not, but was, bread. It is like as if you should say: A slain man is a corpse: for neither can it thence be gathered, therefore the man remains, but rather it is gathered that he does not remain, because a slain man is not a man.
As to the other part of the argument, concerning the name of bread after the blessing, I answered also in Book 1, last chapter, since those passages were objected by the Calvinists: now I answer briefly that in Paul the bread is called after consecration not a specter, nor accidents without a subject, but true supersubstantial food which is called bread, either because it was made from bread, or because it retains the external figure of bread, or because it has the effects and properties of bread, or because by Hebrew custom all food is called bread: since manna is very frequently called bread in Scripture, Exodus 16, Wisdom 16, Psalm 77, John 6.
But that solution does not satisfy Kemnitz: for he says it is very absurd so to play in the Scriptures that in the same chapter bread should now be taken properly, now metaphorically. Since therefore in 1 Corinthians 11 bread by the consent of all is taken properly for wheaten bread, when Paul says, He took bread, and giving thanks, etc., it is necessary also a little below to take it properly, when the same says, As often as you shall eat this bread, etc.
I answer, it is not so absurd as Kemnitz thinks to take some word variously in the same chapter, when some analogy and likeness between those things is found. For in Exodus 7 the rod of Aaron is called a rod before it was turned into a serpent; and again in the same chapter it is called a rod, when it was a serpent, not a rod: The rod of Aaron, says the Scripture, devoured the rods of the Magicians.
But Kemnitz presses: for in Exodus 7 the conversion of the rods into serpents is openly declared; and that declaration being made, it is not absurd that the same name be attributed to the thing before and after the conversion. But Paul did not declare transubstantiation, 1 Corinthians 11; wherefore without foundation it is asserted that the name of bread is taken in various ways in Paul.
I answer that another example can be adduced from Paul himself, where no conversion is noted, and yet the same name is taken variously, 1 Corinthians 10, when it is said, The bread which we break, Paul speaks of wheaten bread according to Kemnitz, and of heavenly bread, that is, of the natural body of Christ, according to the Catholics; and yet in the same place Paul says, We being many are one bread, where he speaks not of wheaten bread, nor of the natural body of Christ, but of the Church. Add that the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11, openly enough declared the various signification of bread, from the change made in the bread. For before consecration he named the bread absolutely, saying, He took bread; but after consecration he always added the pronoun, by which it might be indicated that the discourse is of the consecrated and changed bread; for he says, As often as you shall eat this bread, that is, the bread so blessed and consecrated, and therefore changed into another substance. Add that of unchanged bread it would be false what Paul says, He that eateth unworthily eateth judgment to himself, and, shall be guilty of the body, and, not discerning the body of the Lord.
The fourth argument Kemnitz takes from the nature of a Sacrament. For according to the Scriptures the Eucharist is a Sacrament like Baptism. But if the substance of the bread be lacking, the nature of a Sacrament is taken away; therefore this transubstantiation is not conformable to the Scriptures. The assumption is proved. First, in a Sacrament it is required that there be two things, matter and form; an earthly thing and a heavenly; for the word coming to the element does not annihilate the element, but makes a Sacrament. But transubstantiation takes away the matter and the earthly thing, and annihilates the element.
Secondly, the Sacraments are instituted to confirm the faith of invisible things by visible signs: for therefore we are washed in Baptism, that we may believe that we are as truly and certainly washed inwardly by grace as we are washed outwardly by water; and in the same way we eat bread in the Eucharist, that we may believe that we as truly and certainly receive the body of the Lord as we receive the external bread. But if that is not bread, but a specter of bread, and we are mocked and deceived in the external symbol, how will the faith of heavenly things be confirmed?
Thirdly, there must be an analogy between the Sacraments and the thing of which they are Sacraments, according to Augustine in Epistle 23. And there is a twofold analogy in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. One, that as material bread nourishes and sustains the animal body, so the body of Christ is food nourishing and sustaining the new and internal man. The other, that as wheaten bread is a certain substance compacted of many grains, so they are made one body who partake of that one bread of the Eucharist. Which significations all fall away if the substance of the bread is taken away.
I answer: The substance of the bread pertains in no way to the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but the external accidents alone, as we showed above in Book 2, chapter 9. For a Sacrament is a sensible sign, to which it is accidental to have a substance annexed or not to have.
To the first proof I say that the earthly thing in the Eucharist is those sensible species which are perceived by the earthly senses; but the matter of which the Sacrament is confected I say is true wheaten bread, which in the Sacrament, when now confected, remains as far as is needful, that is, remains as to that in which the Sacrament, that is, the sensible sign, consists. Moreover the word coming to the element does not annihilate the element, but yet changes it in that mode in which it is needful, that this great and wonderful Sacrament may be made. And that there is no annihilation in this change, we both briefly taught above, and will teach again below in the solution of the arguments of Peter Martyr.
To the second proof I say that, for confirming the faith of invisible things, it is enough if the external sign be truly perceived, even though the effect of that sign, as it is a natural thing, do not follow. I explain: in Baptism we are sprinkled with water to signify the internal washing of the soul, and yet there is no need that the filth of the body be really purged by that water, but it is enough if we be lightly touched by that water. For we are not sprinkled in order to wash the body, but only for the sake of the signification, and therefore it is enough if we be so touched by the water as it is a sign of the internal washing. So therefore in the Eucharist, because we do not take the bodily food in order that the flesh may thence be nourished and grow fat, but only for the sake of signifying the internal refreshment, therefore it is enough if we truly take bread by the bodily mouth, inasmuch as it can signify. And bread signifies by reason of the accidents, which alone are the sensible signs; and so it is enough if the bread be taken as to the accidents. Nor is there here any mockery, because the faithful know that they do not take that bread except for the sake of the sign; and the sign, most truly, and most truly do they take it. Add that even the adversaries are compelled to confess this. For if by chance there be given to someone by them so small a particle of consecrated bread that it does not suffice to nourish a man bodily; or a large portion be given, but the man who receives, from weakness of strength and from grave disease, cannot be nourished: they will not therefore deny that a true Sacrament was received by him; there is no need, therefore, that that food nourish, but only that it be a sign of nourishment. Add lastly that even the species of the Sacrament would nourish, if they were taken in great quantity: for just as by divine miracle they remain without a subject, so also they nourish, as the Theologians teach.
To the third proof I say that the analogy between the bread and Christ does not require that the bread truly nourish and consist of many grains, but it is enough if it naturally represent that thing which truly nourishes and consists of many grains. For the Holy Spirit appeared in the species of a dove on account of the analogy between the dove and the Holy Spirit; and yet there was no need that that dove be a true dove as to substance, but it was enough that it should have the external species of a dove. And the brazen serpent represented Christ on account of the analogy between the serpent and Christ, and yet that was not a true serpent as to substance.
Lastly, from the Fathers Kemnitz collected many things against transubstantiation, but all these were explained by us in Book 2: for those same were brought forward also by the Calvinists against the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist. See what we said of the testimonies of Irenaeus, Ambrose, Theodoret, Gelasius, and Hesychius. For he adduces only the testimonies of these, and since he brings forward nothing new, we should tarry in vain in their confutation.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII. Refelluntur Kemnitii objectiones. Superest, ut ad ea respondeamus, quae adversarii contra transubstantiationem ob¬ jiciunt. Ac primum solvam argumenta Kem¬ nitii : ipse enim omnia collegit, quae Luthe- rus in lib. de captivit. Babylon, cap. 1. et Calvinus in lib. iv Instit. cap. 17. § 13. 14. et 15. contra transubstantiationem scripse¬ runt. Deinde solvam argumenta Petri Martyris, quia multa nova addidit ad sup- riora. Igitur Kemnitius Lutherum et Calvinum secutus, primo loco proponit argumentum a nomine transubstantiationis, quod nomen peregrinum et barbarum transubstantiatio¬ nis, Concilium hoc invenerit, quod signum et novae, peregrinse, et barbarie sententiae. Respondeo primo, stultum esse, cum de re constet, litigare de nomine : de re autem ita constat, ut non possit magis constare. Nam Patres, ut supra vidimus, dixerunt panem substantialiter converti in carnem Christi, manentibus tamen accidentibus pa¬ nis ; et Hugo dixit, substantiam in substan¬ tiam ire ; et Guitmundus, Algerus, Petrus Cluniasensisante hoc Concilium ex professo disputarunt, mutari substantiam panis, ac¬ cidentibus non mutatis, quae actio non po¬ test uno verbo significari, nisidicamus tran- substantiari, Secundo licuit Concilio Nicaino in ipso symbolo ponere nomen ogooucnoc, et Con¬ cilio Ephesino nomem Gsotoxo?; majori igitur ratione licuit Concilio Lateranensi in con¬ fessione fidei nomen transubstantiationis ponere. Nam in Concilio Nicaeno 318 Epi¬ scopi fuerunt, in Ephesino 200, at in Latera¬ nensi Episcopi supra 400, et Patres in uni¬ versum plusquam 1000. Deinde ante Nicie- num, et Ephesinum Concilium pauca testi¬ monia veterum extabant de re ipsa : at ante Lateranense innumerabilia. Neque obstat, quod nomen 6u.oou<yt o?, non fuerit primo in¬ ventum in Concilio Nicaeno, ut nos ostendi¬ mus in ii. lib. de Christo, cap. 1, nam satis est, quod in eodem Concilio fuerit publice ab Ecclesia receptum, et stabilitum, ut Au¬ gustinus affirmat lib. m. contra Maximinum, cap. 14. Praeterea, ante Nicaenum Concilium non extabat unum aliquod nomen aequiva- lens nomini 6;jloou3io? : at ante Concilium Lateranense exstabant multa nomina aequi- valentia nomini transelementationis. Nam Patres passim vocant conversionem, ettrans- mutationem, et Theophylactus in cap. xiv. Marci vocat transemetationem, quae certe vox nihil minus significat, quam transub- stantiatiomaae transelementatio significat mutationem totius rei usque ad prima ele¬ menta, idest, usque ad ipsam materiam, quae ab Aristotele elementum vocatur. Denique, si mutatio solius formae dicitur a Graecis gETagop^ocK, et a Latinis transformatio, et mutatio externae figurae, dicitur transfigu¬ ratio etiam in Evangelio, cur mutatio sub¬ stantiae non poterit recte dici transubstantia- tio ? Deinde proponit argumentum negativum hoc modo : « Verissimum est illud axioma, nihil pro articulo fidei Ecclesia) proponendum esse, quod non ex manifestis, certis, et fir¬ mis Scripturae testimoniis aperte ostendi et probari potest. Sed transubstantiatio ab An- dradio(uno videlicet ex Catholicis Doctoribus) collocatur inter- illas res, quae nullis Scriptu¬ rae sacrae testimoniis aperte definitae, et ex¬ plicatae sunt. Scotus item Cameracensis, et alii diserte fatentur, nec verbis Scripturae, nec symbolis fidei, nec veterum sententiis cogi nos ad dogma transubstantiationis. » Respondeo, ad singulas partes argumenti. CAPUT XXII. Axioma Kemnitii falsissimum est : nam si nihil pro articulo fidei proponendum est, quod non ex manifestis Scripturis probari possit, certe pro articulo fidei proponi non poterit, quod libri Evangelistarum, et epi¬ stola) Pauli sint Scriptura) divinse : id enim ex nulla Scriptura, sed ex traditione sola probari potest. Remoto autem ab articulis fidei, quod libri illi sint Scriptura) divinse, simul concident omnes alii articuli, qui ex Scripturis illis probantur . Axioma igitur Kemnitii universam fidem destruit. Quod autem ex Andradio, et Scoto, atque Gameracensi Kemnitius refert, mala fide, ut ei solemne est, refert. Nam Andradius in lib. de ccena Domini, non dicit absolute • transubstantiationem in rebus numerari, quse ex Scripturis probari nequeunt, sed ex hy- pothesi loquitur, ac dicit : « Etiamsi tran- substantiatio ex manifestis Scripturis, ut tu, inquit., arbitraris, probari non posset, tamen furor esset in iis rebus, qua) ex certis locis Scripturarum, nec probari, nccrefelli possent, velle suo judicio potius, quam toti Ecclesiae credere. » Itaque Kemnitius ex hypothetica Andradii sententia, absolutam fecit, ut ca- lumiandi occasionem haberet : qua ratione posset etiam dicere, Christum esse menda¬ cem, idquc probare ex ipsius Christi testimo¬ nio, qui dixit, Joan. vin. Si dixero, quia non novi eum, ero similis vobis, mendax (1). Ubi etiam obiter notanda est alia impos¬ tura Kemnitii contra eumdem Andradium. SicKenmitius loquitur loco citato : « Andra¬ dius meus texit tale argumentum : Scriptura affirmat non esse apud Deum impossibile omne verbum ; ergo credenda est transubstan- tiatio, c-tsi natura) vires, ac modum superet» ; ac deinde argumentum ineptum facile eludit. Sed nunquam Andradio venit in mentem, ut tale argumentum faceret : nec enim ex om¬ nipotentia probat transubstantiationem fie¬ ri, sed non esse impossibilem. Legatur locus Andradii, et per se mendacium cadet. Non dissimili arte in Scoto, et Camera¬ censi Kemnitius ludit : Scotus enim in iv. dist. 11. qufest. 3. quem sequitur Camera- censis, tria dicit. Primo, potuisse Deum effi¬ cere, ut in Sacramento vere adesset corpus Christi cum pane ; et si hoc fecisset, myste¬ rium futurum fuisse facilius, et minus mira¬ culorum in se continens. Quod quidem aliqui negant, alii concedunt : sed res ad fidem non pertinet, neque de eo est nobis cum hae¬ reticis controversia. Secundo dicit, non extare locum ullum Scriptura) tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesia) declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantia¬ tionem admittere. Atque id non est omnino improbabile. Nam etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos supra adduximus, videatur nobis tam clara, ut possit cogere hominem non proter¬ vum : tamen an ita sit, merito dubitari po¬ test, cum homines doctissimi et acutissimi, qualis in primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sen¬ tiant. Tertio addit , quia Ecclesia Catholica in generali Concilio Scripturam declaravit, ex Scriptura sic declarata manifeste probari transubstantiationem. Non enim potest non esse verus Scriptura) sensus, quem is tradit, qui Scripturam condidit : idem autem Spi¬ ritus sanctus est, qui et Scripturam dictavit Apostolis, et Prophetis, et qui eam per Ec¬ clesiam declaravit, Utinam modum istum loquendi Scoti Kemnitius, et ca)teri Luthe- rani imitarentur ; nulla enim controversia remaneret. Unum tamen addit Scotus, quod minime probandum est ; ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei transubstantiationem : id enim ille dixit, quia non legerat Concilium Romanum sub Grego rio VII, neque consen¬ sum illum Patrum, quem nos supra ad¬ duximus. Ad argumentum igitur Kemnitii respon¬ deo, dogma transubstantiationis ad fidem Catholicam pertinere , quia colligitur ex Scriptura divina, secundum explicationem communem Patrum, et juxta declarationem Ecclesia) in Conciliis generalibus. Tertium argumentum sumit Kemnitius ex illis Scripturis, qua) Eucharistiam panem appellant : siquidem ante benedictionem vo¬ catur panis, Matth. xxvi : ( Accepit panem , et de ipso quod accepit, ait) : Hoc est corpus meum. Et ne dubium esse posset, an parti¬ cula demonstrativa denotaret id, quod acce¬ perat Dominus, Lucas et Paulus id expres¬ serunt in altera specie, siquidem dicunt : A ccepit poculum, benedixit, dedit illis , et ait : Hoc poculum ete (1). Ergo simplex historia cogit ut dicamus panem esse corpus Domini, et poculum vini esse poculum sanguinis. At quomodo potest panis esse corpus si nullus sit ibi panis ? et vinum esse sanguis, si (1) Joan. VIII, 55, 190 LIBER IIT. milium sit ibi vinum ? Deinde post benedi¬ ctionem in ipso usu Paulus Eucharistiam I Gorinth. x. etxi. quinquies panem appellat : Panis quem frangimus. De uno pane partici¬ pamus. Quoties manducabitis panem hunc. Qui manducaverit hunc panem indigne. Probet seipsum homo , et sic de pane ilio edat (2) . Ergo verus panis est in Eucharistia , non autem spectrum panis, id est, accidentia sine substantia : « Haec argumenta, inquit Kem- nitius, sunt perspicua, firma, et valde ur¬ gentia. » Respondeo : Quod pronomem, Hoc , non demonstret panem materialem, satis aperte demonstravimus in lib. i. cap. 10 et 11. neque opus est illa repetere, quia quod pro¬ nomen, Hoc , demonstret panem materialem, utile est Caivinistis, contra quos tuuc disse¬ ruimus, Lutheranis autem non modo nihil prodest, sed vehementer obest. Quare valde miror Lutheri, Kemnitii, et aliorum impru¬ dentiam, qui tantopere urgent, panem de¬ monstrari pronomine illo : quanto enim fortius id probant, tanto seipsos fortius li¬ gant, et impediunt. Nam (ut supra deduxi) si Dominus ait : Hic panis est corpps meum, necessario sequitur, ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia, si nimirum proprie panis mate¬ rialis dicatur esse corpus Domini , quod aperte implicat contradictionem : aut panis si corpus non proprie, sed figurate, quod volunt Calvinista: : aut denique panis non manens panis, sed benedictione mutatus sit in corpus Domini, qua3 est sententia Ecclesias Catholicae, et verissima. Ad illas ergo argutias : « Si panis est cor¬ pus Domini, ergo panis manet». Respondeo, falsum esse, panem esso corpus Domini, nisi addas, aut certe subintelligas, mutatum. Panis enim mutatus vere est corpus Domini : sed tunc non sequitur, debere manere pa¬ nem ; nam panis mutatus non est, sed fuit panis. Simile est, si dicas : Homo occisus, est cadaver : neque enim inde colligi potest; ergo homo manet, sed potius colligitur non manere, quia homo occisus non est homo. Quod attinet ad alteram partem argumenti de nomiqe panis post benedictionem , re¬ spondi etiam lib. i: cap. ult. siquidem ea loca a Caivinistis objiciebantur : nunc bre¬ viter respondeo, apud Paulum panem vo¬ cari post consecrationem non spectrum, nec accidentia sine subjecto, sed verum cibum supersubstantialem qui panis dicitur , vel quia ex pano factus est, vel quia figuram externam panis retinet, vel quia habet ef¬ fectus, et proprietates panis, vel quia more Hebraico omnis cibus dicitur panis : siqui¬ dem manna vocatur panis in Scriptura fre¬ quentissime , Exod. xvi. Sap. xvi. Psal. lxxvii, Joan. vi. Sed solutio ista Kemnitio non satisfacit : dicit enim esse valde absurdum in Scripturis ita ludere, ut in eodem capitulo modo panis accipiatur proprie, modo metaphorice. Cum ergo I Corinth. xi. panis omnium consensu accipiatur proprie pro pane triticeo, quando Paulus ait : A ccepit panem, et gratias agens ete ., oportet etiam paulo infra proprie acci¬ pere, quando idem ait : Quotiescumque man¬ ducabitis panem hunc etc. Respondeo , non est ita absurdum , ut Kemnitius putat in eodem cap. varie acci¬ pere aliquam vocem, quando analogia aliqua, et similitudo inter eas res invenitur. Nam Exod, vix, virga Aaron vocatur virga, an¬ tequam verteretur in colubrum ; et rursum in eodem capitulo vocatur virga, cum esset coluber, non virga : Devoravit , inquit Scri¬ ptura, virga Aaron, virgas Magorum. At instat Kemnitius ; nam Exod. vn , aperte declarata est conversio virgarum in colubros : ea autem declaratione facta, non est absurdum idem nomen tribui rei ante et post conversionem. Paulus vero non decla¬ ravit transubstantiationem, I ad Gorinth. n. quare sine fundamento asseritur, panis no¬ men accipi variis modis apud Paulum. Respondeo, aliud exemplum ex ipso Paulo adduci potest, ubi nulla notatur conversio, et tamen idem nomen varie accipitur, I Co¬ rinth. 10. cum. dicitur : Panis quem fran¬ gimus, de pane triticeo Paulus loquitur se¬ cundum Kemnitium ; et de pane ccelesti, id est, de corpore Christi naturali secundum Catholicos ; et tamen ibidem Paulus ait : Unus panis multi sumus, ubi non de pane triticeo, nec de corpore Christi naturali, sed de Ecclesia loquitur. Adde, quod Apostolus I Corinth. xi. satis aperte declaravit variam panis significationem, ex mutatione facta in pane. Nam ante consecrationem absolute nominavit panem, dicens : Accepit panem; post consecrationem autem semper addidit pronomen, quo indicaretur sermonem esse de pane consecrato, et mutato ; ait enim ; (1) Math. XXV, 26 ; Luc. XII, 19; ICor. XI, 75. - (2) I Cor. X, 16, 17 ; XI, 26, 27 et 28 CAPUT XXIII. 191 Quotiescumque manducabitis 'panem hunc , id est, panem sic benedictum, et consecratum, et proinde mutatum in aliam substantiam. Acide, quod de pane non mutato falsum esset, quod Paulus dicit : Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat , et , reus erit corporis , et , non dijudicans corpus Domini. Quartum argumentum Kemnitius sumit a ratione Sacramenti. Nam secundum Scri¬ pturas Eucharistia Sacramentum est sicut Baptismus. At si desit substantia panis , tollitur ratio Sacramenti; ergo non est Scri¬ pturis conformis ista transubstantiatio. As¬ sumptio probatur. Primo, in Sacramento requiritur, ut sint dute res, materia, et for¬ ma ; res terrena, et coelestis ; verbum enim accedens ad elementum, non annihilat ele¬ mentum, sed facit Sacramentum. At tran¬ substantiatio tollit materiam, et rem ter¬ renam, et annihilat elementum. Secundo, Sacramenta sunt instituta ad confirmandam fidem rerum invisibilium per signa visibilia : ideo enim abluimur in Ba¬ ptismo, ut credamus nos ita vere, et certo interius lavari per gratiam, ut exterius la¬ vamur per aquam, et eodem modo panem manducamus in Eucharistia, ut credamus nos ita vere, et certo accipere corpus Do¬ mini, ut accipimus panem externum. Sed si ille non est panis, sed spectrum panis, et ludificamur, ac decipimur in symbolo ex¬ terno ; quomodo fides rerum coelestium con¬ firmabitur ? Tertio debet esse analogia inter Sacra¬ menta, et rem, cujus Sacramenta sunt, juxta Augustinum in epist. 23. Duplex autem ana¬ logia est in Sacramento Eucharistiae. Una, quod sicut panis materialis alit, et sustentat corpus animale, ita corpus Chr isti est cibus nutriens, et sustentans novum, et internum hominem. Altera, quod sicut panis triticeus est quaedam substantia ex multis granis co¬ acta, ita unum corpus efficiuntur, qui de uno illo pane Eucharistiae participant. Quae significationes omnes intercidunt, si sub¬ stantia panis tollitur. Respondeo : Substantia panis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti Eucha¬ ristiae, sed sola accidentia externa, ut supra obstendimus lib. n. cap. 9. Sacramentum enim est signum sensibile, cui per accidens est, ut habeat substantiam annexam, vel non habeat. Ad Primam probationem dico, rem terre¬ nam in Eucharistia esse species illas sensi¬ biles , quae terrenis sensibus percipiuntur ; materiam autem, ex qua Sacramentum con¬ ficitur, dico esse verum panem triticeum, qui in Sacramento jam confecto remanet, quatenus opus est, id est, remanet quantum ad id, quo Sacramentum, id est, signum sen¬ sibile est. Porro verbum ad elementum ac¬ cedens, non annihilat elementum, sed tamen mutat eo modo, quo opus est, ut fiat hoc' magnum, et .mirabile Sacramentum. Quod autem nulla sit in hac mutatione annihilatio, et supra breviter docuimus, et infra iterum docebimus in solutione argumentorum Petri Martyris. Ad secundam probationem dico, ad fidem confirmandam rerum invisibilium, satis esse si externum signum vere percipiatur, etiamsi * non sequatur effectus ejus signi, ut est res naturalis. Explico : in Baptismo aspergimur aqua, ad significandam internam lotionem animse, et tamen non est opus, ut reipsa sordes corporis aqua illa purgentur, sed satis est si leviter ab illa aqua contingamur. Non enim aspergimur, ut lavemus corpus, sed solum gratia significationis, et ideo satis est si ita ab aqua attingamur, ut est signum internae ablutionis. Sic igitur in Eucharistia, quia non sumimus cibum corporalem, ut caro inde nutriatur , et pinguescat ; sed solum gratia significandae internae refe¬ ctionis, ideo satis est, si vere corporali ore sumamus panem, quatenus significare po¬ test. Significat autem panis ratione acci¬ dentium , quae sola sunt signa sensibilia ; itaque satis est, si panis sumatur, quoad accidentia. Neque est hic ulla ludificatio , quia norunt fideles se non sumere panem illum, nisi causa signi ; signum autem ve¬ rissimum, et verissime sumunt. Adde, quod etiam adversarii id fateri coguntur. Nam si forte detur alicui ab ipsis tam exigua par¬ ticula panis consecrati, ut non sufficiat ad hominem alendum corporaliter ; vel detur magna quidem portio, sed homo qui reci jit, et virium debilitate, et gravi morbo nutriri nequeat : non propterea negabunt verum Sacramentum ab illo fuisse acceptum ; non igitur est opus ut cibus ille nutriat, sed tan¬ tum ut si nutritionis signum. Adde ultimo, quod etiam species Sacramenti nutrirent, si in magna copia sumerentur : sicut enim di¬ vino miraculo manent sine subjecto , ita etiam nutriunt, ut Theologi docent. Ad tertiam probationem dico, analogiam inter panem, et Christum non requirere, ut m LIBER III. panis vere nutriat , et ex multis granis constet, sed satis esse si naturaliter reprae¬ sentet eam rem, qua} vere nutrit, et ex multis granis constat. Nam Spiritus sanctus apparuit in specie columba} oh analogiam inter columbam et Spiritum sanctum ; et tamen non fuit opus, ut illa columba esset vera columba, quoad substantiam, sed satis fuit, ut speciem exteriorem columbae haberet. Et serpens aeneus Christum repraesentas it ob analogiam inter serpentem, et Christum , et tamen non fuit ille verus serpens, quoad substantiam. Ultimo ex Patribus multa collegit Kem- nitius contra transubstantiationem , sed ea omnia explicata sunt a nobis in ii. libro : nam illa eadem afferebantur etiam a Calvi- nistis contra veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia. Vide quse diximus de testimoniis Irenfei, Ambrosii , Theodoreti , Gelasii et Isichii. Horum enim duntaxat testimonia adducit, et cum nihil novi afferat, frustra in eorum confutatione immoraremur.